Mungur v Minister of Rural Development and Land Reform (478/2011) [2014] ZAECPEHC 86 (11 December 2014)

Mungur v Minister of Rural Development and Land Reform (478/2011) [2014] ZAECPEHC 86 (11 December 2014)

The court held that the correspondence between the parties identified the purchaser, seller, property, and purchase price with sufficient accuracy to satisfy the essentialia of a contract for the sale of land. The absence of a written term specifying the method of payment does not invalidate the agreement, as the common law position—cash payment against transfer—applies unless the parties expressly agree otherwise. There was no evidence of any agreement to deviate from the common law position. Therefore, the correspondence constitutes a valid deed of alienation under section 2(1) of the Alienation of Land Act 68 of 1981.

Citation
[2014] ZAECPEHC 86
Parties
Plaintiff: Terence Mungur; Defendant: Minister of Rural Development and Land Reform
Court
Eastern Cape High Court, Port Elizabeth
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
11 December 2014
Case Number
478/2011
Procedural Posture
Civil Trial / Determination of Preliminary Issue Under Rule 33(4) Regarding Validity of Deed of Alienation
Outcome
The correspondence exchanged between the parties constitutes a valid deed of alienation under section 2(1) of the Alienation of Land Act 68 of 1981.
Judges
RWN Brooks
Legal Topics
Alienation of Land Act, Deed of Alienation, Essentialia of Contract, Method of Payment, Contractual Formalities
Land and Property Civil Procedure Alienation of Land Act Deed of Alienation Essentialia of Contract Method of Payment Contractual Formalities

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Terence Mungur

Plaintiff

Minister of Rural Development and Land Reform

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Trial / Determination of Preliminary Issue Under Rule 33(4) Regarding Validity of Deed of Alienation

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the correspondence exchanged between the parties constitutes a valid deed of alienation under section 2(1) of the Alienation of Land Act 68 of 1981.
  2. 2 Whether the absence of a written term specifying the method of payment of the purchase price invalidates the agreement.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the correspondence between the parties identified the purchaser, seller, property, and purchase price with sufficient accuracy to satisfy the essentialia of a contract for the sale of land. The absence of a written term specifying the method of payment does not invalidate the agreement, as the common law position—cash payment against transfer—applies unless the parties expressly agree otherwise. There was no evidence of any agreement to deviate from the common law position. Therefore, the correspondence constitutes a valid deed of alienation under section 2(1) of the Alienation of Land Act 68 of 1981.

Court Disposition

The correspondence exchanged between the parties constitutes a valid deed of alienation under section 2(1) of the Alienation of Land Act 68 of 1981.

Orders

  • The letters exchanged between the parties on 18 November 2008 and 23 November 2008, annexures A and B to the Agreed set of Facts dated 26 November 2014, are declared to constitute a valid deed of alienation as provided for in section 2(1) as read with section 1 of the Alienation of Land Act 68 of 1981.
  • The defendant is directed to pay the plaintiff’s costs of suit, together with interest at the prescribed rate of 9% per annum from fourteen days after date of allocatur to date of payment.